^^*0/- 




o 
o 



^ ** s 



.3). 



.L.aJ3s:..z. 



Author 



Title 



Imprint. 



le— 47372-2 «l>e 



m 



qI^ Qor-^^Ch. higio^k^r. 



CENSURES OF THE GOVERNMENT 



WinittXi States, 



CONTAINED IN THE NINTH CHAPTER OF A BOOK, 



BNTITLED, 



« EUROPE : OR, A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE PRESENT SI- 
TUATION OF THE PRINCIPAL POWERS ; WITH CON- 
JECTURES ON THEIR FUTURE PROSPECTS. BY ^ 

A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES.'Vf-^ , ^^IMA-^^ 




BOSTON: 

WELLS AND LILLY COURT-STREET. 

1822. 



1) 3 g ^ 



RE3IARKS, ^c. 



A Book has lately appeared, entitled " Europe : 
or a general Survey of the present situation of the 
principal powers ; with conjectures on their future 
prospects. By a citizen of the United States." 

Of the correctness of the details, relating to the 
principal powers, or of the conjectures on their 
future prospects, few, in this country, are com- 
petent to form a satisfactory judgment. On the 
facts and observations which regard the United 
States, we cannot but feel a deep interest, and on 
these we have the means of deciding correctly. 

In the 9th chapter, entitled " The British Na- 
vy," the author has been pleased to censure the 
Government of the United States, when adminis- 
tered by General Washington, and of course the 
whole country ; for we have yet to learn, that the 
government and people of a country will be distin- 
guished in the character, which the world will 
form of both; and while all men are willing to 
share in the eulogium, which his administration 



derived to the nation, not a feAV are disposed to 
shrink from a full responsibility for those measures 
wliich this gentleman has been pleased to criticise. 
These censures also derive an interest from an in- 
timation, very plainly made, that the author is in 
the service and confidence of the American Go- 
vernment. 

It is, however, believed, that a recurrence to 
the times and transactions on which he has treat- 
ed, and on which he founds his charges, will con- 
vince him and all impartial men, that he has mis- 
taken the nature and character of those measures 
ascribed to the government, when administered bj 
President Washington. 

The author says, page 400, " Under pretence 
of prohibiting commerce with an enemy in ipuni- 
tions of war, which had been previously done, Eng- 
land undertook to interdict the trade in provisions, 
and even medicines. And the nation, which some- 
times claims the praise of being more civilized than 
any other, was guilty of the crime of attempting 
to starve the whole innocent population of another 
countrv, and give it over to disease, because the 
two governments were at war. Considered as a 
deduction from previously existing usages, the 
claim was perfectly absurd, and / regret that it 



should have been sanctioned in a formal treaty by 
the Government of the United States." 

Great Britain authorized her cruizers to capture 
and send into port, vessels loaded with provisions 
and bound to France, and retained the cargo, on 
payment of its estimated value. 

To this illegal and impoHtic conduct she pre- 
tended a right, under the law of nations. Against 
these captures the United States remonstrated 
and exerted every effort which prudence, in the 
existing state of affairs, would admit ; and after 
some time the orders of Great Britain were re- 
voked. 

The 18th article of the Treaty to which the 
author alludes, is the one, on which he probably 
founds his charge, " that the United States, in a 
formal treaty, have sanctioned the crime of at- 
tempting to starve the whole innocent population 
of another country." Its words are as follows, 
viz. "Whereas the difficulty of agreeing on the 
precise cases, in which alone, provisions and other 
articles, not generally contraband, may be consi- 
dered as such, renders it expedient to provide 
against the inconveniences and misunderstandings 
which might thence arise." " It is further agreed, 
that whenever any such articles, so becoming con- 



6 

traband, according to the existing Law of JYations, 
shall, yor that reason, be seized, the same shall not 
be co?ifiscated, but the owners thereof shall be 
speedily and completely indemnified ; and the cap- 
tors, or, in their default, the government, under 
whose authority they act, shall pay to the masters 
or owners of such vessels the full value of all such 
articles, with a reasonable profit thereon, together 
with the freight, and also the demurrage, incident 
to such detention." 

By no construction can the words of this article 
be stramed, to sanction the seizure of provisions, in 
any case, where they are not contraband. That 
cases may be supposed, wherein provisions, not 
generally contraband, may become so, will hardly 
be denied : but if any hold the doctrine, that such 
do not exist, the article may be considered rather 
in their favour, than against them : for it is only by 
implication, that the words of the Treaty allow of 
their seizure, in any case, and in such only, where 
they become contraband hy the existing Law of 
JYations, and shall Jor that reason be seized, and 
then, that they shall 7iot be confiscated, but the own- 
ers thereof shall be speedily and completely in- 
demnified. 



It is too clear to admit a doubt, that the article 
does not sanction a seizure of provisions in any 
case, except when they are contraband ; and in 
such cases, the right to seize is not afforded by the 
treaty, but by the law of nations, independent of 
the treaty, as that law is understood and acknow- 
ledged by all the world. 

The only alteration, made by the treaty, is to 
exempt provisions from confiscation^ to which they 
would have been liable under the law of nations. 

Instead of the clause having sanctioned the 
crime of starving an innocent population, it holds 
out inducements for the American to assist in reliev- 
ing the people of a country from the hazard of starv- 
ing, by insuring to him speedy and complete indem- 
nification incase of seizure, although in some cases 
the articles would be otherwise liable by the ex- 
isting law of nations to confiscation. It is worthy 
of remark, that the pretensions of Great Britain 
to seize provisions under the orders to which the 
writer alludes, were not only firmly opposed by 
the United States, but that their citizens, who had 
received from England the value according to the 
estimate of the British government, which value 
was composed of the invoice price, with an addi- 
tion of ten per cent., claimed a further sum before 



a board established under this treaty, consisting of 
American and British commissioners ; and, by 
their award, received full and complete compensa- 
tion from the British government. 

The rule by which that board estimated the 
value, was the price for which such provisions 
sold at the port in France, where they were des- 
tined at the time of their probable arrival, had 
the voyage not been interrupted. The decisions 
by this board, the acquiescence in such decisions, 
by prompt payment by the British government of 
the awards rendered in those cases, confirm the 
opinion that the treaty did not sanction the pre- 
tensions of Great Britain in regard to provisions, 
either in her own judgment, or in that of America. 
It is true, that at that time some adversaries of 
the treaty, whether from utter stupidity, unable to 
comprehend the clear and distinct language of the 
article, or from a wicked and perverse ingenuity, 
in attempts to construe it, to forward their pur- 
pose of rendering the negociation odious, so that 
they might involve the country, as a miserable and 
dependant ally, in all the horrors of the French 
revolution, did pretend, that Great Britain was 
authorized to seize American provisions going to 
France by virtue of this treaty. 



But such glosses were no sooner examined, by 
a fair exposition of the terras of the article, than 
the wickedness and folly of the attemj3t were ap- 
parent, and but one sentiment pervaded the com- 
munity on this subject. 

It is true, that the British government renewed 
the order, in regard to provisions, about the time 
of the ratification of the treaty ; but it is also true, 
that the government of the United States mani- 
fested so firm a resolution, and remonstrated so 
strongly against the orders, that they were again 
revoked. It must, then, be evident, that the 
author has fallen into a very deep error, in sup- 
posing that " the United States had, in a formal 
treaty, sanctioned the crime of attempting to 
starve the whole innocent population of another 
country." A writer, of so much sagacity, must 
surely have adopted the assertions of the oppo- 
nents of the treaty, without recurriug to the act 
itself: for it is utterly impossible, that, with his 
intelligence, he could have so mistaken its plain 
and obvious import. 

The treaty was negotiated by Mr. Jay, and ra- 
tified by President Washington, with the advice 
and consent of two thirds of the members of the 
senate, comprising the late Governor Strong, Mr. 
2 



10 

Cabot, the late Chief Justice Elsworth, Mr. King 
of New York, Mr. Robert Morris, and others of 
that body, whose character for wisdom and firm- 
ness have not been surpassed by any men of any 
country. And it would be matter of painful re- 
flection, if such men had sacrificed the rights of 
the nation or the interests of humanit y 

It may, however, be fairly presumed, that the 
author, after duly examining the words of the 
treaty and the contemporaneous conduct of those 
who administered the government of the United 
States, at the period to which he refers, instead 
of finding occasion of regret for a supposed defec- 
tion in his country from what its honour or its in- 
terests required, will have abundant reason for be- 
ing satisfied, that both were eminently preserved 
in times of uncommon difficulty and peril, by the 
wisdom and firmness of men, who have reflected, 
and will, for a long time, continue to reflect, no 
ordinary lustre on the American name and cha- 
racter. 

Errors like those which are here exposed, are 
less excusable at the present day, when, although 
personal objections to distinguished individuals are 
not entirely removed, yet all well-informed and 
impartial men agree in, and approve of, the sin- 



11 

gular prudence and the admirable policy of the 
administration of General Washington ; an admm- 
istration which, at home and abroad, has advanced 
the reputation of our country. 

The author says, page 409, " The claims of the 
United States, as a neutral power, have been ex- 
tremely moderate. They acquiesced in the prin- 
ciple, that the enemy's property on board of neu- 
tral vessels is good prize, and in the pretended 
rule of 1756." 

The first position is true, that the United States 
acquiesced in the principle, that enemy's property 
on board of a neutral ship is good prize. 

When we assumed the character and sovereignty 
of a nation, we made a part of the great society 
of nations in the civilized world. Asserting our 
rights, in this character, we became liable to its 
obligations, and were bound to take the law as we 
found it. We neither made, nor could we alter its 
principles. 

In this code, as understood and practised upon 
by all nations from the earliest ages, it was clearly 
established, that the property of an enemy, found 
on board a friend's ship, was a good prize. We, 
therefore, in acquiescing in the principle, did no 
otherwise than our duty as an independent nation 
obliged us to do. 



12 

Different nations, at various times, have, by 
treaties, altered and modified their rights and du- 
ties as between themselves. But this never liEid, 
nor could have any further effect, than between 
the parties to the contract. And it may be seen 
by a recurrence to history, that such stipulations 
have not always been effectual between the parties 
themselves. 

We had a lamentable instance of the want of 
efficiency of such an agreement, in our experience 
under the treaty we made with France, in 1778. 

It Avas then agreed between the United States 
and France, that the ownership and character of 
the ship should decide the character of the cargo, 
and that the goods of an enemy, found on board 
the ship of one of the parties, should be free from 
seizure by the other ; and further, that the goods 
of the party not at war, should be liable to seizure 
and condemnation by the other, if found on board 
the vessels of those with whom the nation making- 
such seizure was at war. 

To this rule the United States steadily adhered, 
and, at the same time, saw the goods of their own 
citizens, found on board English vessels, brought 
into the United States by French cruizers, and 
sold for the benefit of the captors, before the eyes 



13 

ot' those to whom they belonged at the time of 
their capture by the ships of France ; while 
France, within about two months after her decla- 
ration of war against England, authorized her 
ships of war and privateers, in violation of her 
treaty and of our rights, to capture all neutral 
vessels, loaded in whole or part with merchandize 
belonging to enemies, or with provisions belonging 
to neutrals, if bound to enemy's ports. 

The decree, authorizing such captures, was 
prior, by one month, to the first orders of Great 
Britain, under which our provisions, destined for 
French ports, were seized and carried into Eng- 
land. The author is certainly incorrect in saying 
that the United States acquiesced in the pretend- 
ed Rule of 1756, by which, as he states, neutrals 
were prohibited from carrying on a trade in war, 
which they were not allowed to carry on in time 
of peace. 

In November 1793, Great Britain issued the 
following instructions to the commanders of her 
ships of war and privateers, viz. " That they shall 
detain all ships loaded with goods, the produce of 
any colony belonging to France, or carrying provi- 
sions or other supplies for the use of any such co- 
lony." 



14 

In January 1794, she revoked that order, and 
authorized the capture of all vessels loaden with 
goods, the produce of the French West India Isl- 
ands, and coming directly from any ports of said 
Islands to any ports in Europe. 

These orders very justly excited the indignation 
of the government and people of the United States, 
and but one sentiment, that of determined resis- 
tance to such injurious conduct, prevailed among 
all parties and all men. The only question that 
existed on this occasion, related to the nature of 
the opposition to be made. 

A portion of Congress thought, that commercial 
restrictions on the trade of England was the 
course to be pursued for this purpose ; and, with 
this view, certain resolutions passed the House of 
Representatives. 

President Washington, sustained by Hamilton 
and other men in his confidence, apprehending 
that the Resolutions of the House would be fol- 
lowed up by other measures, of a character which 
would produce war, was of opinion that an attempt 
should first be made to obtain satisfaction by nego- 
tiation ; but, notwithstanding the moderation of 
this proceeding, it is well known to have been his 
opinion, that the failure to obtain satisfaction must 
be followed by war. 



15 

In pursuance of these opinions, the President, 
on the 16th of April, 1794, sent the following 
message to the Senate : — 

" GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE, 

" The communication which I made you, dur- 
ing jour present session, from the despatches of 
our minister in London, contains a serious aspect 
of our atfairs with Great Britain. But as peace 
ought to be pursued with unremitted zeal, before 
the last resource which has so often been the 
scourge of nations, and cannot fail to check the 
advancing prosperity of the United States, is con- 
templated, I have thought proper to nominate, 
and do hereby nominate John Jay, as an envoy ex- 
traordinary of the United States to his Britannic 
Majesty. My confidence in our minister plenipo- 
tentiary in London continues undimmished; but a 
mission like this, while it corresponds with the so- 
lemnity of the occasion, will announce to the world 
a solicitude for a friendly adjustment of our com- 
plaints and a reluctance to hostility. Going imme- 
diately from the United States, such an envoy will 
carry with him a full knowledge of the existing 
temper and sensibility of our country, and will thus 
be taught to vindicate our rights with firmness and 
to cultivate peace with sincerity." 



16 

With these sentiments a majority of Congress 
concurred. The Senaie approved of the nomina- 
tion of Mr. Jaj, and declined to pass the resolution 
which had been adopted by the House of Represen- 
tatives, prohibiting all trade with Great Britain. 

Measures were taken to place the United States 
in a situation to vindicate our rights by the sword, 
should the attempt to obtain satisfaction by nego- 
tiation fail. 

So far from acquiescing in the pretended Rule 
of 1756, as this author has asserted, the United 
States determined to resist it, and did resist it, bv 
all the means in their power. 

They sought redress for the injuries suffered 
under the orders of 1793, which attempted to es- 
tablish that Rule, by a solemn embassy, avowing 
their purpose, at the same time, in language which 
could not be mistaken by England or any part 
of the world, to seek satisfaction by war, should 
she refuse the demands so made by the American 
envoy. 

It will be remembered, that the determination 
took place after England had revoked the orders 
of November 1793, and limited the authority of 
capture to vessels laden Avith the produce of the 
French West India Islands, and proceeding directly 
from any ports of said Islands to Europe. 



19 

The author chooses to remark, " that it was 
only the wholly unauthorized practice of impress- 
ment on board of neutral ships, and the last unwar- 
rantable pretensions to a right of interdicting all 
commerce with an enemy, under pretence of block- 
ading the coasts, that the United States firmly re- 
sisted in principle." 

Surely this writer must have left entirely un- 
noticed the conduct of the United States, which we 
have explained ; and he must have misunderstood 
or undervalued the resistance made to England, 
which, without war, was crowned with complete 
success in the attainment of full compensation for 
all the injuries sustained from her unlawful mari- 
time captures. We say, all, because we do not 
remember a single instance of failure to obtain 
complete reparation for an injury of this nature. 

We have no disposition to disturb the quiescent 
state and apparent harmony of national politics 
which seem to prevail, at least in the northern 
parts of our country, or to interrupt those unquali- 
fied hosannas, which all our publications, and es- 
pecially our newspapers, are constantly wafting 
to the present administration. But it may be 
fairly questioned, and, we hope, without offence 
to any one, whether it be just to characterize the 



20 

administration of Presidents Washington and Adams 
as wanting in firmness, when compared with that 
of Mr. Jelferson, who resisted the infringement of 
our rights, by imposing commercial restrictions in- 
jurious to ourselves, and an embargo on our ships, 
wasteful in the extreme and unlimited in duration; 
or with that of Mr. Madison, who made resistance 
by entering into a war without preparation, and 
closed it without attaining a single object for 
which it was professed to have been undertaken, 
and particularly without procuring the abandon- 
ment of the claims of impressment and blockade 
to which the author specially refers. 



END- 



17 

Fortunately the envoy succeeded in vindicating 
the dignity and supporting the honour of the 
United States. 

All the thorny and difficult points of the treaty 
of "peace were adjusted. The posts retained by 
England, in our country, contrary to the stipula- 
tions of that treaty, she agreed to surrender, and 
they were surrendered. Measures were taken for 
settling the boundaries of the two countries ac- 
cording to that compact. Full and complete com- 
pensation for all the unjust seizures on the high 
seas, of which our citizens complained, was pro- 
vided for by a board of commissioners to be ap- 
pointed for that purpose, to consist of American 
and British citizens; which board was authorized 
to decide the claims for such compensation accord- 
ing to the merits of the several cases, and to jus- 
tice, equity, and the laws of nations. Here is no 
attempt to enforce the Rule of 1756, on the part 
of England, or of acquiescence therein, on the part 
of the United States. 

Many cases of capture under the several orders 
referred to, were brought before this board, who 
examined the assumed principle, and distinctly de- 
cided, that it was not sanctioned by the laAV of na- 
tions, and awarded to the claimants full and com- 
3 



18 

plete compensation for the loss and damage sus- 
tained by reason of every capture made under 
that Rule. 

Among these cases were some of capture on 
voyages between the United States and the French 
colonies, and on voyages between the colonies and 
and ports of Europe. And they were among the 
first and last cases, in point of time, that Avere de- 
cided by that board. 

That board was organized in 1796, and closed 
their commission in 1804. The awards, made in 
these cases, were promptly and punctually paid 
by the British government. 

It may, therefore, be said with much more 
truth, that Great Britain abandoned the Rule of 
1756, than that the United States acquiesced in its 
validity : for the United States promptly resisted 
it by solemn remonstrances ; and evidently an- 
nounced to Great Britain, unless compensation was 
made for the injuries suffered by their citizens 
under this Rule, that war would be resorted to 
for satisfaction. Satisfaction was promised by 
Great Britain. It was fairly and fully made by 
her to the complaining citizens of the United 
States, and peace with honour was preserved. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

lllllililllllliiil 

015 900 762 5 



